[Community] Clarification of Rules / Procedures etc

[Richard]

On Monday 26th July 2010 , Escouts: Community alone attracted over 1000 unique visitors (real people), and that is excluding our Search engines.

Over 7000 pages were viewed by REAL people that day. On that day, our members made 233 new posts and created 16 new threads. But one statistic I find remarkable, the average time on the site is almost 8 minutes!

So Escouts: Community is large and a valuable resource for Scouting in the UK (& beyond), we know that, you know that. Escouts is moderated by a team of volunteers. Through this team of volunteers this resource is moderated every day of the year, day and night. There are times however when situations occur, where users get embroiled in discussion and sometimes occasionaly errors are made by the moderators, that we are forced to take a step back on some things, and review what happened, there was a point last week where this occured.

Social Groups
There are 3 invite only Social Groups on Escouts, the Group that caused the concern last week was the GSL Group. This was due to the fact that a user was discussed (without his knowledge) in this Group. Whilst the user was anonymous, this was still unacceptable. The people involved have admitted their mistakes and apologised for them.

With this in mind the following addition has been made to the Community Rules:

• Concerns about postings or individual users should be directed to the moderators using the mechinism below. Users conduct must not be discussed on the Board, or in any Social Groups.

The following existing rules also still apply:

• No Potentially libellous comments about a named individual or group of people.
• No potentially personal comments about a named individual or group of people.

The Escouts Management feel on balance that there is value in invite only social groups, and properly run they can continue.

Closing of Account
Accounts will only be closed from now on, at the users request via a PM to me, or after a lengthy period of non use. Confusion was created last week by me, by closing the Anonymous users account upon a post he made on the forum. By adopting this process, there will be no doubt when the user actually wants the account closed.

Anonymous users
We allow users to post annoymously, and the board through privacy settings allows users to hide certain information about themselves. We have consistantly allowed this and will continue to do so. However, I would stress the fact that Anonymous users need to remember that if their posting style is controversial, they run a higher risk of being labelled a troll, and subsequently banned, as per the rules.

Posting meaningfully
The Forum isnt twitter or facebook, please do not post a thread telling us that your having a cucumber sandwich for lunch or that you've created a yellow button on your webpage. The forum is a place to exchange meaningful experiences, ideas, support and opinions,

It isnt life or death!!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, WITHIN THE RULES. The Escouts Management Team reserves the right to ban people who break the rules of the forum. We give infractions when appropriate, and warn people as well, however we will and have banned people who do not follow the rules.

I hope this post goes someway to clarifying the situation for people

The updated rules are here
http://www.escouts.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2012

[Bushfella]

The following existing rules also still apply:


No Potentially libellous comments about a named individual or group of people.
No potentially personal comments about a named individual or group of people.

This needs changing. Something is either Libellous or it is not. Something is either personal, or it is not.

For example, married lady X is having an affair with married man Y who is not her husband. if it is true, then it is not libellous. If it is false, it is.

W is a tall dark handsome chap. Is a personal statement. So is Z is a complete moron. Both are opinions which may or may not be supported by factual evidence.

Yes, I'm mischief making, but the fact is the rule is open to interpretation and abuse.

It should read, perhaps.

No libellous statements may be made. ( As the publisher you are jointly liable)

No personal statements may be made. So, that precudes us commenting on the shape of Penny's ankles

[13thwoolwich]

It should be "No potentially damaging personal comments".

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Bushfella

This needs changing. Something is either Libellous or it is not. Something is either personal, or it is not.

For example, married lady X is having an affair with married man Y who is not her husband. if it is true, then it is not libellous. If it is false, it is.

W is a tall dark handsome chap. Is a personal statement. So is Z is a complete moron. Both are opinions which may or may not be supported by factual evidence.

Yes, I'm mischief making, but the fact is the rule is open to interpretation and abuse.

It should read, perhaps.

No libellous statements may be made. ( As the publisher you are jointly liable)

No personal statements may be made. So, that precudes us commenting on the shape of Penny's ankles

Yip comments are either libellous or not. But in your affair example, since we have do not know if the comment its libellous or not, it is not allowed. So its worded as potentially libellous..

Personal comments are again open to interpretation and in some cases depend on the person, or how its phrased, thats why that isnt exact either.

[Bushfella]

Yip comments are either libellous or not. But in your affair example, since we have do not know if the comment its libellous or not, it is not allowed. So its worded as potentially libellous..

Personal comments are again open to interpretation and in some cases depend on the person, or how its phrased, thats why that isnt exact either.

So.... the assessment of what is and isn't allowed becomes, by definition, arbitrary.

Okay, okay, don't fret, I'm just being awkward for the sake of being awkward.

[Penny E]

Originally Posted by Bushfella

So, that precludes us commenting on the shape of Penny's ankles

Ewan, you have my full permission to discuss my ankles, but I fear that it might be considered a breach of the "no cucumber sandwiches" rule?